"Why would GM produce a mid engine sports car when the C7 is already mid engine?"

The above quote is a really dumb response that demonstrates absolutely no knowledge of physics as applied to performance automobiles! But, I have to cringe at the number of similar responses that I have received over the years when trying to promote a mid engine Corvette. It is fine to prefer a front engine car over a mid engine car. Front engine cars make arguably better Grand Touring cars, especially since FE layouts typically demonstrate more benign handling at the limit than a mid engine car (understeer vs oversteer). This is especially true since Grand Touring typically involves travelling at high speeds on unfamiliar roads. For example, try getting surprised by a decreasing radius turn in a mid engine car vs a front engine car.

If you love mechanics and high performance sports cars, you know why you want a mid engine car!

Technically speaking, the Corvette hasn't been a true sports car for a very, very long time. It's a GT. It's been a GT for ages. And that's actually a big deal and the reason that it's sold as successfully as it has: it has, as Tadge is fond of putting it, the bandwidth to do it all. Run errands, commute to/from work, get groceries, take long trips, carve up canyons, and terrorize race tracks. Depending on how they build this rear-ME, the utility of the vehicle will take a hit.

Do you think such a radical departure from the proven Corvette formula has the potential of killing off the Vette? We will see.

No, I think it will only enhance the Corvette formula and image. Those stuck in the past with the FE layout are probably the same old bunch that said the iPhone would be a failure because the smaller flip phones were so much simpler and easier to use. They probably still use a VCR as well. If you canít deal with this technology change (to an ME) then you should probably grab a C7 as fast as you can. But itíll look pretty outdated once the new ME is released!

The above quote is a really dumb response that demonstrates absolutely no knowledge of physics as applied to performance automobiles!

I think we should be a bit careful before calling someone's response "really dumb" when the rest of your post wasn't too intelligent to begin with. Let's examine the quoted text:

Quote:

Why would GM produce a mid engine sports car when the C7 is already mid engine?

Technically, that's a correct statement. The phrase "mid-engine" doesn't mean what you're implying it means. It simply means: "Engine is between the axles". And, the Corvettes since C4 (and perhaps further back) have been that. It's part of why they're so well balanced in the handling department for the most part. What you're implying by your statement is a rear-mid. So if you want to pull someone's statement apart, make sure you do it carefully. Certainly, rear-mids provide a lower polar moment of inertia (which is good and bad!) and they generally give more mass where it's needed: over the driving wheels. Further, they usually put less stress on the front brakes, which can help with slowing at the track.

But, again, technically Corvettes have been ME for a while. The engine has just been in front of the driver instead of behind it.

Technically speaking, the Corvette hasn't been a true sports car for a very, very long time. It's a GT. It's been a GT for ages. And that's actually a big deal and the reason that it's sold as successfully as it has: it has, as Tadge is fond of putting it, the bandwidth to do it all. Run errands, commute to/from work, get groceries, take long trips, carve up canyons, and terrorize race tracks. Depending on how they build this rear-ME, the utility of the vehicle will take a hit.

This is an interesting take I guess, considering the fact that a GT car typically meets certain other criteria...by your reasoning the 911 is actually more of a GT than the Corvette, but everyone considers the 911 to be a "real" sports car.

The Corvette is a REAL sports car, just like the 911, or the Viper...which is exactly the same as the Corvette when it comes to layout and capability yet no one makes the GT caveat when talking about a Viper. Its a silly thing to even suggest as Corvettes and 911's are among the fastest road going track capable cars and therefore classifies it as a sports car. Hell I consider the ZL1 1LE as a proper sports car as well, but for some reason the "pony car" caveat precludes this possibility in peoples eyes, even though it will humiliate plenty of "real" sports cars in their natural environment.

The question is whether or not the Corvette is a supercar, generally I think the consensus discounts the price and the lack of $50k worth of leather in the interior as determining factors against this classification...which is stupid, but I digress.

The mid engine platform has literally one thing going against it vs the outgoing front engine Vettes and that is storage capacity. Although if there is a nice storage area under that rear hatch we may end up with even more storage than previous Corvettes. So who knows?

Some people will bitch and moan about some benign design thing that they just can't live with and pass up the C8 over it. Some will continue their boycott of tail lights that aren't round and wax poetic about flip up head lights. Some will not buy because there is no manual. In the end we May lose a few buyers changing to a mid engine platform, but we will likely gain quite a few more that want in on a sports car layout that has been exclusively the domain of supercars for decades (with the exception of a few underwhelming examples like the MR2 Spyder).

Personally I've only been a fan of Corvettes since the reveal of the C7, it was the first time I saw a Corvette and knew I had to have one, I am also young-ish at a ripe old age of 38, so my taste is a bit different than many legacy Corvette enthusiasts. The best thing GM can do is throw out as much "tradition" as they can, while still maintaining the things that make a Corvette, a Corvette. Considering the fact that I can buy a $35k Hyundai with a nicer interior than many cars leads me to believe the capability of GM to make a nice interior affordable is there. We already know GM can make a killer chassis and power train, so all we need now is a banging job on the exterior design and presto...another great Corvette.

Corvette will be just fine.....to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't mind seeing fewer of them on the road provided GM is making enough off of them to continue the lineage and its a quality product. They will always have to cater to a value proposition as it will never have the prestige of an Italian exotic, but increasing the rarity will add to the "special-ness" of seeing them in the wild....much like the Viper.

GM does not NEED to sell 30,000 Corvettes to be successful and profitable. Look at Lamborghini, Ferrari, McLaren, etc. Who knows, they may choose to go down the route of a higher priced (higher margin) and lower volume Corvette. That wouldn't kill the Corvette, it would simply change their business model around the car. I'm not suggesting that is what they will do, I'm just saying that everyone seems to think they need to sell a bazillion cars to survive and that's simply not the case. Completely depends on their strategy and what they want to do with the Corvette as a halo car/brand.

Maybe the car becomes a $120,000 car with 10,000 units a year and that is what GM wants from a strategic perspective for whatever the reason. It doesn't kill the Corvette, it just changes it.

With all these doom and gloom predictions. remember Bowling Green has many employees that GM needs to pay and keep working, so reducing the number of units produced and increasing the price will furlow those/those employees. GM knows that and needs high production numbers to keep those people employed and still make a profit.
Price will be inline with the current model and production numbers will still be 30-40 units a year

I think you are missing something important. The advantages of a mid engine are lost on the majority of Corvette owners. The typical owner is not the performance freak. It's the older guy who likes to be seen in it and likes the utility of the cargo space, and the day-to-day functionality.

I'm at the very very end of the Gen X group and LOVE the cargo space and the long front end on the Corvettes. I won't be giving it up for an ME car. The c7 will be my final modern Corvette purchase.

I think we should be a bit careful before calling someone's response "really dumb" when the rest of your post wasn't too intelligent to begin with. Let's examine the quoted text:
Technically, that's a correct statement. The phrase "mid-engine" doesn't mean what you're implying it means. It simply means: "Engine is between the axles". And, the Corvettes since C4 (and perhaps further back) have been that. It's part of why they're so well balanced in the handling department for the most part. What you're implying by your statement is a rear-mid. So if you want to pull someone's statement apart, make sure you do it carefully. Certainly, rear-mids provide a lower polar moment of inertia (which is good and bad!) and they generally give more mass where it's needed: over the driving wheels. Further, they usually put less stress on the front brakes, which can help with slowing at the track.
But, again, technically Corvettes have been ME for a while. The engine has just been in front of the driver instead of behind it.

You misunderstand my post. The quoted statement is a response that I received when trying to champion a (rear) mid engine layout to people like yourself! An advertising person coined the phrase front mid to help sell the 93 Mazda RX7! The most accepted definition of "front mid" is a car that has its front axle ahead of its engine with the driver behind the engine. Like a Ford model T for example! From an engineering standpoint, unless you are talking about a Panoz front engine racer or an Indy roadster, the vast majority of cars use a front engine (with 50% or more of the cars weight on the front wheels). This includes the C7. However, I believe that the first Corvette had a 47/53 weight distribution that was still called a front engine sports car in its day.

The term front-mid is BS. It is used by marketing departments to sprinkle mid engine goodness on your typical sports car or GT. If the term were only applied to front engine cars with less than 50% of their weight on the front wheels, it might be a relevant term, but it is not.

Technically speaking, the Corvette hasn't been a true sports car for a very, very long time. It's a GT. It's been a GT for ages. And that's actually a big deal and the reason that it's sold as successfully as it has: it has, as Tadge is fond of putting it, the bandwidth to do it all. Run errands, commute to/from work, get groceries, take long trips, carve up canyons, and terrorize race tracks. Depending on how they build this rear-ME, the utility of the vehicle will take a hit.

What we really don't know is how many people are out there that are waiting/looking/dreaming to get a used ME (engine behind the driver) because a new Ferrari or even Porsche is just out of reach. Here comes the new ME Corvette and problem solved. But are there enough of those folks to make up for those that will go elsewhere to find the GT style car they desire.